Hoping to get some advice from some of you more experienced people. I have a T4i that came with the kit 18-55 basic lens. I recently got the 50mm 1.8 and have fallen in love with it. To my novice eyes the image quality is noticeably better than what I was getting with the kit lens.

So my question to you all is what lens could I get as an upgrade to the kit lens I got that would be better in terms of image quality? But would give me the same, or similar, focal range that the 18-55 is giving me? Without going to the L lenses? Or am I asking for too much? I'm not necessarily only looking for Ef-s lenses. If I'm going to invest in lenses I'm almost inclined to only buy EF. Just in case I one day take the plunge into the FF world... But any recommendations would be great.

Thanks for any help and let me know if my questions need any clarification.

the first gives much wider aperture availability and constant f2.8 which is very nice

the later is variable aperture and much slower but gives a wider wide end and much greater zoom range

they are similar prices depending on which strengths you prefer either will be excellent

if you shoot alot of low light i would go with the first option if not so much and the greater zoom range is appealing go with the second

Agreed. Both will give you significantly better quality. If you are in the U.S. the EF-S 15-85 is much cheaper. It is on my 7D about 80% of the time. If traveling, I take only this lens and my 70-300 "L" and can cover just about anything.

Others may disagree, but in my opinion, in the wide range, there aren't practical EF alternatives. (Both of these lenses are good enough that if you later move to full-frame they should have decent resell value. )

the first gives much wider aperture availability and constant f2.8 which is very nice

the later is variable aperture and much slower but gives a wider wide end and much greater zoom range

they are similar prices depending on which strengths you prefer either will be excellent

if you shoot alot of low light i would go with the first option if not so much and the greater zoom range is appealing go with the second

Agreed. Both will give you significantly better quality. If you are in the U.S. the EF-S 15-85 is much cheaper. It is on my 7D about 80% of the time. If traveling, I take only this lens and my 70-300 "L" and can cover just about anything.

Others may disagree, but in my opinion, in the wide range, there aren't practical EF alternatives. (Both of these lenses are good enough that if you later move to full-frame they should have decent resell value. )

+1, I also use the 15-85 and 70-300L

Both 17-55 and 15-85 a great lenses for a crop camera, L lenses in this range won't give you better IQ on your camera.Worry about FF later - who knows what FF lenses will be available by the time you upgrade?

I know people who are happy with the 24-105mm f/4L on a crop camera, but most of them chose to complement it with an EF-S wide angle lens, because 24 is not really wide on a crop camera. With 17 or even 15mm, I don't miss the ultra-wide EF-S lenses (yet)

the first gives much wider aperture availability and constant f2.8 which is very nice

the later is variable aperture and much slower but gives a wider wide end and much greater zoom range

they are similar prices depending on which strengths you prefer either will be excellent

if you shoot alot of low light i would go with the first option if not so much and the greater zoom range is appealing go with the second

Agreed. Both will give you significantly better quality. If you are in the U.S. the EF-S 15-85 is much cheaper. It is on my 7D about 80% of the time. If traveling, I take only this lens and my 70-300 "L" and can cover just about anything.

Others may disagree, but in my opinion, in the wide range, there aren't practical EF alternatives. (Both of these lenses are good enough that if you later move to full-frame they should have decent resell value. )

Let me give another vote on the 15-85 lens, I had one together with my 60D and for all I could tell it's optically as good as my 24-105 that I have now. Never mind buying EF now, IF you move to FF then you sell of the 15-85 together with your current body and get the 24-105 as kit lens. That should server you well.

Logged

M.ST

I can only recommend this two lenses (and the EF 24-70 2.8 II big grin):

EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS+ 2.8 at all focal lenght (but I like it only from 3.5 up, at f/2.8 a little bit soft)+ at f/4 better than the EF 24-70 2.8 II L (at f/2.8, f/11 and up to f/22 the EF 24-70 2.8 II L is better)+ better build quality than the EF-S 15-85 IS+ 77 mm filters like most L lenses+ L-glasses in a non L lens+ better colors than the EF-S 15-85 IS+ sharper in the edges and less visible CA´s than the EF-S 15-85 IS+ full-time mechanical manual focusing after pressing the shutter button half down+ distance send to E-TTL= only 7 blades- hits from the AF only around 85 % (EF-S 15-85 IS is better)- at f/11 the EF-S 15-85 IS is a little bit and at f/16 the EF-S 15-85 IS is better- only 3 stop IS- long and heavy- build quality can´t reach the L lenses- not parfocal (I love parfocal lenses)- like the EF 24-70 2.8 II L not so good if you use the lens at a narrow distance- some lenses have a dust problem behind the front glass after using it for a while

EF-S 15-85 IS+ AF better than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS (hits around 97 %)+ 4 stop IS+ very sharp+ full-time mechanical manual focusing after pressing the shutter button half down+ smaller and less weight than the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS+ focal range is that what a lot of people want+ build in tripod function for the IS= only 7 blades- focus ring feels cheap compared to the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS- not parfocal (I love parfocal lenses)- like the EF 24-70 2.8 II L not so good if you use the lens at a narrow distance

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is better than the EF 24-105 L, EF 17-40 L and EF 16-35 II L on APS-C. The EF 16-35 II L is a little bit sharper in the middle.

If you don´t need f/2.8 or f/4.0 at all focal lenght, want the best AF hit rate and want save money then get the EF-S 15-85 IS.

If you want the best colors and L quality glasses in a non L lens than get the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS.

The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is the only EF-S lens that you can put with an extension tube EF 12 on a FF camera. But you don´t really want it. You don´t have AF and have a dramatic distorsion.

The EF 24-70 2.8 II L works fine on APS-C if you don´t need the focal lenght under 24 mm. But you have no IS, pay a lot of money and don´t have the right weight balance.

If you are low on budget, you can try Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro as well. It might not be as sharp as Canon 15-85 but then again it is $300 cheaper, a stop faster and has Macro capabilities.

I used to own this lens. Agreed. Good fit for a kit replacement too.

I owned the first version of the siggy, and the second OS HSM version, andboth were a great upgrade/ bang for buck over the kit lens. I've heard good things about the 17 -55 F2.8 but have not used one myself.

These are all fair enough reasons to upgrade, edpecially if you have a particular interest such as landscape where polarisers grads and hoods are used, or sports where speed is of the essence.

But here's the rub: ever since the first 18-55is ( first shipped with the 450d) the image quality has been very good, and these lenses represent excellent value.

You would need to spend quite serious money to get anything even slightly better.

I would suggest using your 'upgrade' money to expand your range, maybe a telezoom or another fast aperture prime lens ( a short trle like the 100mm f2.0?)

If you want a faster aperture then I find the digma 18-50 f2.8 dc macro a very good lens, the newer 17-50 f2,8 os version is reputed to be even better.

+1 if you can't get the job done with the kit lens and 50mm combo you're not trying hard enough. I had that lens for over a year and I got loads of great shots from it before I even considered upgrading. For me the limiting factors were no full time manual, poor build and not constant aperture (that was a biggie).

Also now I am starting to realize there is not much going on in that focal range. If like me you use it almost all the time at 18mm you're better off buying the 10-22mm. You already have the other end covered with the 50mm. My combo these days is one wide angle zoom and one tele prime. Not much looks good in between. Though that is just my opinion.

These are all fair enough reasons to upgrade, edpecially if you have a particular interest such as landscape where polarisers grads and hoods are used, or sports where speed is of the essence.

But here's the rub: ever since the first 18-55is ( first shipped with the 450d) the image quality has been very good, and these lenses represent excellent value.

You would need to spend quite serious money to get anything even slightly better.

I would suggest using your 'upgrade' money to expand your range, maybe a telezoom or another fast aperture prime lens ( a short trle like the 100mm f2.0?)

If you want a faster aperture then I find the digma 18-50 f2.8 dc macro a very good lens, the newer 17-50 f2,8 os version is reputed to be even better.

Hmm, I think this is a very thought through post and obviously based on more knowledge and experience than what I can come up with. But I would still go back to argue for the 15-85, it's a completely different animal than the 18-55, at least the old one that I got with my old 400D. I tried it against my 15-85 on my 60D that I got later and it was just two completely different worlds. That said, I have not tried the kit lens you're talking about here. 15-85 is very versatile and the T4i has the same sensor as my old 60D that together produced some really nice pictures even for a fairly unskilled guy like myself.

Two years ago, I found myself in the same situation as you, I had the kit lens and the Nifty Fifty, but I wanted a better walk around lens, the battle was between the 17-55 and the 15-85. After seriously thinking about pros and cons, I bought the 15-85, and to be honest the IQ and colors were way much better than the 18-55, plus 15mm in APS-C is quite wide (specially for traveling) and it is nice to have the 85 when you need the extra reach, the only con for me was the low light performance, but in those cases I used the nifty fifty.The main problem is that if you are planning to jump to full frame, you will have to sell your EF-S lenses (as I did).